Ranty ranty ranty

[malsperanza]

In case anyone thinks John McCain has become any more attuned to the urgent needs and precarious security of working people and retirees, here is an article from the WSJ from Oct. 6:

"John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs. [...] Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser,* said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled."

Oh, and the other way they're gonna fund the tax credits? By taxing salaried workers' employer-paid healthcare premiums as income. So yer tax credit is paid for with yer tax increase. (Unless you're already wealthy enough to have private health insurance, in which case you get the tax credit without penalty.)

Yes, Maverick McCain is still tied buckle and thong to the GOP gospel of gutting government programs that protect the vulnerable. He wants to strip retirees of affordable health care, "reform" Head Start (i.e., slash its budget and tie it up in state mandates so the money can be "repurposed" to pay for road repairs), and privatize Social Security (because wouldn't the bailout babies on Wall Street love to get their mitts on all that cash, so they could invest it in illusory paper, charge high fees to unwitting grandmothers, and generally cash in).

Article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html#printMode

*Now that I<3Deregulation4evar Phil Gramm is hiding in the closet

Comments

[biomaton.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with privatizing social security?

Can you tell me why I should be funding somebody else's retirement? People have the misconception that they're "paying into" social security and then "pulling out" from it when they retire, when the truth is workers are funding social security benefits directly.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's called being a responsible citizen. Civilized nations take care of their elderly, children, disabled, and veterans. Same reason you pay taxes for a defense dept., fire dept., FDA, NIH, OSHA, EPA, and public schools. Because you don't live on a fucking island.

[biomaton.livejournal.com]

Your attempt to tug on heart strings falls on deaf ears. While little can be done in regards to those hopelessly dependant upon social security, a responsible citizen would be responsible for their own retirement.

So suppose I were significantly older than you? Do I have a right to take your money just because I'm older than you?

[lorem_ipsum]

Because if we don't throw money at senior citizens, more of them will end up living on the streets, which makes a city sooo unsightly.

Footnote: The OP actually addressed your question, by the way. Privatization plans typically involve offering incentives for people to prepare for retirement by "investing" in the stock market. Investing = genteel gambling.

[lorem_ipsum]

"John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs. [...] Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser,* said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled."

Wait, so if I'm following this correctly, he's come up with a plan that will not only not help anyone, but will actually screw over both the poor *and* the middle class?!

[biomaton.livejournal.com]

The amount of money you spend on a program does not directly correlate to how much it actually helps people, nor does it directly correlate to how much you "care" for a group of people.